The National:

FEAR, dismay, worry. These words do little to describe the emotions many around the world have been feeling watching Afghanistan be overrun by the Taliban.

However, if you’re a self-proclaimed “Labour hack” and former president of the Law Society of Scotland, the unfolding humanitarian crisis offers something other than concern altogether.

Ian Smart, who also blogs in support of Scottish Labour, took to Twitter on Monday evening to give his take on the Afghanistan crisis – and turn it against the SNP.

READ MORE: Urgent four-nations summit needed on Afghan refugees, say SNP

Smart, whose surname is nothing if not low-hanging fruit, wrote: “If I was advising the UK Government I’d be suggesting calling [Nicola] Sturgeon’s bluff and proposing building a new town in central Scotland to give 200,000 UK supporting Afghan refugees a new home. UK pays. Lots of space in post-industrial West Lothian. Over to the SNP to respond.”

Quite why this would be calling Nicola Sturgeon’s bluff we are unsure.

If she had proposed building a 200,000 strong town in Central Scotland for Afghan refugees we think it may have made the news.

Either way, Smart seemed positively chuffed with his contribution to the conversation around the Afghan crisis. Others were less so.

One user wrote: “As a Weslo resident I wouldnae huv a problem wae this, except I wouldnae be so cruel as tae try segregating them intae a new ‘town’ when there’s plenty space that we could build them intae the community.

“No really ‘calling the bluff’, is it?”

READ MORE: Ian Blackford calls on UK Government to take in 35,000 Afghan refugees

Another added: “‘Why doesn't Scotland vote Labour any more?’ Aye, it's a mystery right enough.”

“How would the Brits build such a city? How long would it take? Last Labour lot could only manage six hooses up here,” one William Brown quipped.

Many more took issue with Smart's proposition, saying it effectively amounted to building a giant ghetto for Afghan refugees.

Responding sensibly to Smart's very unsensible post, Amanda Wheaton wrote: "I would not have any problems with thousands of refugees here. I doubt [Sturgeon] would.

"It's obviously a bit distasteful wanting to have them ghettoised, as you suggest. But no reason why they should not settle and get jobs. We are underpopulated."

Responding to Smart, Alex Cruikshanks wrote: “Ah yes, Afghans are all passionate supporters of British Unionism for some reason, preventing Scottish independence is just all they think about.”

Smart thought he’d hooked a big one there, as he retweeted Cruikshanks writing: “This is apparently the reason the Nats wouldn’t welcome Afghan refugees. Not that they are remotely racist.”

His reply seemingly misunderstands both Cruikshank’s tweet and her entire profile, which states in no uncertain terms that she is an “anti-nationalist”. Hardly representative of the Scottish nationalists he’s crusading against.

As user @sky_traffic noted: “Having a politics filtered entirely through resentment of the SNP really does create some incredible takes.”

Another user added: “A myriad of ways to knock the SNP, yet this ‘person’ chooses a humanitarian crisis caused in part by his party.”

Apparently still on a completely different planet to everyone else, Smart then engaged with one user who had asked him to delete his “terrible” post.

“Why? I’d be absolutely up for this. If you are not, why?” he asked, apparently still set on putting hundreds of thousands of displaced and vulnerable people into a purpose-built town segregated from the rest of Scotland.

He then declared that the replies to his tweet had exposed “racist scum”.

That is despite the vast majority of those replies echoing user @camerontasker, who wrote: “We welcome refugees to Scotland but not to be segregated into a separate ‘town’ the size of Aberdeen.

“We welcome them into our communities, to be our neighbours and to be part of the rich tapestry that makes up the people of our country.

“This is not about political oneupmanship.”

Exactly.